“The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005).”

Aside from the oddity of citing a submission by Antarctic tour operators, the boot cleaning manual didn’t actually mention climate change or connect boot cleaning protocols to climate change, a small point overlooked by the Love Guru and his Groupies. The manual expresses concerns about increased activity in both tourism and science:

Acknowledging concerns towards the increase in activity in tourism, science, logistics, and the build-up toward the International Polar Year, as well as concerns raised by Australia (ATCM XXVIII WP 28 CEP 4 (d)) and IUCN (XXVXIII IP 63 CEP 4(d)), IAATO offers its boot and clothing decontamination guidelines for discussion and possible adoption, in whole or in part, by other visitors and activities in Antarctica.

I generally think science is a serious endeavor, and that the climate issues at stake are especially serious, and that the Climate Audit is particularly great when science is discussed, and that writing love stories does not automatically make a scientist non-scientist… All this admitted, the CA has recently been exceptionally entertaining! Thanks so much, Steve McIntyre and the CA commenters, in this particular case Craig and Jeff. Laughing loudly for a quarter of an hour…

Kangaroo Island, SA is only about 3500 mi from Antarctica. In some places there are strict protocols and cautions about where to walk. No used farm equipment or heavy machinery can be imported. All needs to be clean and brand new. “Biotic contamination” was one term used. (heck, you can still get down and dirty if you want to, for example, chase feral pigs around).

I hope Professor Steig followed the IPCC guidelines. Or, maybe Phil told him not to worry about it. Phil would smooth it out and infill his soles for him.

I’m wondering who was going to make money off the Polar Year “watch Antarctica melt” tours. Every calving glacier…”See, told ya so”. They couldn’t have been planning a spa resort at the peninsula, given it was going to be so warm in a coupla years, could they? Or, maybe they were just going to sell retirement lots for people looking ahead, sorta like Florida swampland in the 20’s.

Further re peer review (perhaps OT snip as needed please)
I followed through some of the links above and came to this http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
It occurred to me thinking about peer review, most people with an interest in the facts about climate patterns will have altogether new views about the relevance of particular journals to this area of scientific enquiry. By attempting to rubbish eg E & E, the hockey team by their own efforts in internal emails which we have seen, have ended up enhancing that, and no doubt other, journal’s standing. The “big Journal” editors will have to regroup a bit to maintain circulation,and contributions even – I hope.

If there is increased human activity on Antarctica, then one would think an Albedo change would have occurred near the only thermometer used to measure the temperatures in the Antartic resulting in an UHI effect

OT sorry – have a question for Steve that needs a quick reply. I have just been sent this email by Channel 4 News (UK) who I have been pestering since last December to give coverage to the issues raised by climategate:

“Andrew, we have a discussion between Lord Lawson and Professor Robert Watson from UEA about the credibility of climate science. Would you like to send in a question to put to either of them? Flora”

I can think of a question or two, but you started this game – and I am really just an observer – so Steve, do you have a particular question for Prof Watson you would like me to suggest? The programme will be on air at 7pm GMT – so I assume they will want a reply in the next hour or so. It’s 3.30pm here just now.

Authorities such a Mr. Miliband have insisted that the extensive criticism of the data and analysis from UEA does not undermine the extensive body of evidence supporting AGW from other sources. If so, given Dr. Jone’s extensive association with scientists at other institutions and his knowledge of their collective research, why would such an esteemed climatologist risk undermining the efforts of his colleagues by holding forth a such seriously compromised piece of work?

you agreed with my point about a guest article using silly names for WWF but this seems to be in the same vein.

This whole scam has finally gone mainstream and is getting the coverage it should have got long ago. This will mean many more people asking questions and checking out alternative views. Your site is probably one of the most prominent and IMHO one of the most objective.

I believe it is really counter productive to get into this sort of name calling.

There is a wealth of things that Pachauri can be attacked on. Failing to ensure application of IPCC fundamental principals, huge conflicts of interest, I don’t need to give you a list.

Writing pathetic erotic novels does nothing for his cred as a senior administrator but I’d the the gutter press enjoy that one and concentrate on how he’s mislead the world.

You’ve done the world a great service with your work. Please stick to the science.

Steve: I take your point. However, your point should, in part, be directed to Pachauri and IPCC. Had Pachauri stuck to the science, the present satire would have been avoided. There is a scientific point here – the Boot Cleaning Manual does not even support the point for which it is cited in WG2.

It is more than probable that this site is now accessed by mainstream journalists, and they need any ideation from all sources to maintain their interest and provoke ideas. They will pickup useful truly scientific scrutinies en passant.
Besdes it is a true story, and an occasional bit of fun is a good thing. I am sure Steve will continue to use his judgement and will not loose the main focus.

There is a valid point in this article. It’s just the phrase I highlighted I find unprofessional.

Pachauri has already tried to deflect attacks over the Hymalayan fiasco as ad homien despite the fact it was clearly a rebuttal of false science and of his abject failure in his primary duties to ensure IPCC procedures are followed.

Don’t give him an opportunity to deflect from the real issues.

I no long think he should resign, he’s doing a great job of discrediting the IPCC, let it run.

P Solar, I find it difficult to judge that reasonably sophisticated readers cannot separate the wit and humor part of these threads and the more serious intentions contained therein. I believe that bloggers have their own individual personalities and that except for those very stiff or very phony bloggers their personalities will come through. I would think that if too much effort was placed by blog owners on how these features of their personalities were received by protagonists or affected some message that wanted conveyed we would have something more akin to a peer-reviewed publication.

I have suggested more climate science paper analysis on this blog and others, but I am not an owner of the blog and though my suggestions can be repeated (too frequently) I understand that blogging is popular and informative for the personalities that are involved.

To be specific in regard to this thread, I contend that the thinking person sees the reference to Eric Steig as merely one acknowledging that Steig is a frequent visitor to the Antarctica and perhaps a connection to Steig spreading the Peninsula warming (the warming the IPCC was featuring in this instance) to the remainder of the Antarctica. Also I think that a thinking person’s view of Randy P’s novels and the comments that development can provoke is very much separate from the good doctor’s handling of issues related to the IPCC. It puts a human touch on these more serious institutional matters and perhaps even gives some better perspective of them.

That some of Steve M’s protagonists will not be so open minded with regard to his presentations at CA is not in doubt, but that they might attempt to use some OT material to deflect the serious arguments says, in my view, more about them than it does Steve M.

Why is it so hard to be honest in criticism of this IPCC report? It took me 30 seconds of looking through the Boot Cleaning Manual to find this sentence “Resulting from the Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife workshop hosted by the Australian Antarctic Division (Hobart, October 1998), this document is intended to address the concern about the potential translocation of diseases by tourists in Antarctica”.

And then 2 minutes of searching with Google to find the Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife workshop report: http://bit.ly/ctcj1h. In several places it mentions stress on Antarctic animals reducing their immunity to disease and goes on to say “Stress may be the result of direct human disturbance, food shortage (perhaps caused by fisheries competing for the same food stocks), exposure to pollutants and possibly, in the longer term, as a result of climate change.”

Is it that much to ask that a “science” sight does a little homework before posting?

Steve: You quote “this document is intended to address the concern about the potential translocation of diseases by tourists in Antarctica”. “tourists”. “climate change” is not mentioned. Tourists are. There’s a difference between “climate change” and an “increase in tourism”.

Re: Eldon Degraw (Feb 2 12:07),
Eldon,
Good spot, which explains why this document was referenced in the IPCC report – but does it justify the firm statement “The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability”. The sentence you quote has lots of caveats “Stress may be … and possibly, in the longer term, as a result of climate change”

Actually, no I don’t think it does justify the statement. If I was writing/reviewing this section of the report I either wouldn’t have included the sentence or at least changed the wording of it.

It just think it’s dishonest to pretend there is no connection between this document and climate change. It’s not like the IPCC just grabbed some random Boot Cleaning manual as is being implied in this post and other around the web.

Steve: Tell you what – I’ll amend the title so that it’s clear that we’re talking about “Antarctic” boot cleaning.

You realize that the people who are doing this to antarctica (not that it probably amounts to much) are the climate scientists and their research in itself? The damaging effects that climate change research has on the environment cannot possibly be construed as relevant to a report on the damaging effects of climate science.

That would be like a mechanic saying “There is something wrong with your car, let me look. Ah, I injured myself doing something to the car that normally mechanics wouldn’t ever do; you see, it did have a problem!”

I don’t see a connection between climate change and the document at all. The proposed connection it that climate change may lower immunity, resulting in increased disease / mortality. A very foggy supposition, and certainly not peer reviewed. The exact same statement could be made in the negative and be as certain.

On the other hand, population density is a very good indicator of the potential for catastrophic epidemic (I’ll skip the references), so maybe reducing the population would be more helpful.

1. The IAATO guidelinedoes not reference the report of the Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife workshop. It references the workshop itself. Please provide a link to reference of IAATO attendance at workshop climate change presentations. (“Resulting from the Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife workshop hosted by the Australian Antarctic Division (Hobart, October 1998), this document is intended to address the concern about the potential translocation of diseases by tourists in Antarctica.”) DEAD END.

2. You are also not seeing the IAATO action in context next to WGII’s statement: “Given the current lack of scientific data on natural disease status and microbial populations of Antarctic wildlife, and of methods to prevent anthropogenic transmission, a sensible precautionary approach is proposed.” [IAATO guideline] vs. “climate change . . . [has] necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005).” [WGII section 15.6.3]

The record says IAATO’s “sensible precautionary approach” in the face of a “lack” of scientific information is the context for their document. WGII either purposefully took the document out of context or they just needed some filler. You said that “it’s not like the IPCC just grabbed some random Boot Cleaning manual.” My gut tells me they did. Sloppy is as sloppy does.

Pardon me, I take back #1 above:
“Concerns that humans, be they with scientific or with tourist operations, might introduce pathogens to Antarctic fauna led to a workshop on diseases of Antarctic wildlife in Hobart, Australia in October 1998. A report was presented to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) XX111 in 1999, and was considered by the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP 11) in 2001. It concluded there was a significant risk and that consequences would likely be serious. There is a need to reduce the risk of disease introduction or spread among Antarctic fauna by humans.” [emphasis added]

#2 still stands. “A sensible precautionary approach” by a merchants association to “prevent antropogenic transmission” “given the current lack of scientific data” did not give ANY support to the statement by WGII that “climate change . . . [has] necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula.”

Steve: You quote “this document is intended to address the concern about the potential translocation of diseases by tourists in Antarctica”. “tourists”. “climate change” is not mentioned. Tourists are. There’s a difference between “climate change” and an “increase in tourism”.

Please, just take two seconds and look over the Diseases of Antarctic Wildflife report. They’re clearly concerned with tourists being vectors for pathogens, pathogens that will lead to disease in wildlife stresses from a number of factors, possibly including climate change.

The IPCC report writes of the ‘stress of climate change.’ The Arctic Wildlife report (which I searched) is only referenced indirectly, and merely mentions that climate change could stress the animals. There is no reference for this speculation and so no empirical data behind it. It carries zero scientific weight and so the IPCC’s statement remains unsupported by its reference.

The report receiving the citation does not make the claim of climate change. You yourself admit you had to go to a secondary report to find a connection to climate change. If they wanted that to be the reference, they should have cited that report, not the report on boot cleaning. Shoddy work or didn’t have a clue, one or the other, in this instance.

This was discussed over in the comments of the WUWT post with someone with a different posting name but the same argument. The “Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife” wasn’t listed in AR4, one might wonder why they didn’t reference it directly. If you read the “Diseases” document, the reason becomes clear. In 114 pages or writing, climate change is bfiefly mentioned three times. In all three cases, it is contained in an ambiguous list of potential wildlife threats, always couched in uncertain terms such as “could” or “may”. It is in not definitive, but tossed into a laundry list of potential reasons for concern. That the IPCC would extrapolate these throw-away sentences into climate change has “necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines” is nonsense.

Do you think that Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife workshop report included the phrase:

in the longer term, as a result of climate change.

because of:
1) Their own research or
2) Everything bad has to include climate change. or
3) From a previous IPCC report

Personally, I think 1) is unlikely otherwise the IPCC would have had the peer reviewed papers to cite instead of boot cleaning pamphlet. Number 2) is perhaps being a bit harsh so that leaves number 3).

In which case the sequence of events are:

IPCC produce report claiming Antarctica will warm.
Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife workshop report includes climate change as a possible future cause of disease.
IAATO produce decontamination guidlines after workshop.
IPCC cite IAATO guidlines as source for Antartica having to introduce decontamination as a result of global warming.

After a long day of cleaning boots at Ice Station Zebra, Sanjay entered the lounge room and was greeted with a rare treat…Debbie’s large, pendulus breasts, beckoning him to slather them with the warm, soapy…….

Andrew comments on the proliferation of the gates in the linked article above. I think we should really try to limit the number of “gates” that get discussed. Having 10+ controversies is just too hard to keep straight.

To help consolidate the controversies, I propose we combine the boot cleaning reference fiasco with the soft porn fiction into one controversy…Bootygate.

In the present contexy, why not “Boobygate”? Fun-loving birds include the masked booby, the blue footed booby (that did not wear its boots), the brown booby for those preferring that shade, the blue suited booby for formal occasions …

Pleased to see that Carl Gullens above noted that it’s the researchers as well as the tourists who are a threat. If there was no fear of AGW there might be fewer scientists. A bit like Heisenberg’s distortion, where the act of measurement intrudes on the measured factors to produce an uncertain result.

It was with Lord Lawson and Prof Watson. Prof Watson is chief scientific advisor at DEFRA and also director of strategic development at the UEA.

The thing that caught my attention, and which I’ve blogged about, is his statement on global warming: “We cannot show that it’s due to any natural variability…. The only way we can explain that temperature increase is due [sic] to human activity.”

The result of this for me is that AGW is invoked simply to fill the gap between what can be explained by natural variability and the obvserved increase (if any, of course, but that’s another story).

Iain 5 above, the rubbishing of E&E has been quite effective, a number of institutions have failed to renew over the last 2 or 3 years, including Penn State (cancelled Dec 2008). Never mind. Just to cheer everyone uo, tomorrow I’ll put Keennans paper on open access’, the link will be http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/121493 A version is maybe knocking around already, but good to make available the version ‘of record’ is it not?

Well well – I wonder who arranged Penn State’s (and perhaps other?) cancellation of subscription. What petty minded and closed thinking.
Thanks for link to E&E index. I look forward to reading Keenan’s original tomorrow.
Be of good cheer, E&E is more open minded and I am sure will continue to be.

This reminds me of the days when the global decline in frogs was being sold by the environmentalists as a consequence of the hole in the ozone/climate change. Frogs as Uniquely sensitive mine canaries.

Turns out it was the environmentalists/scientists tromping around in infected soil and tranferring the infectious agent from one Frog population to another that was the real problem. Some sort of parasite as I recall.

The media went from one frog scare story after another to dead silence. A lot of people have never even heard about the sad resolution of the frog scare.

Seems almost like froggate was a dry run for the subsequent scaremongering about runaway global warming.

again, apologies…for so many posts, but here u r in the guardian, with pic, looking good, in an article that is a mere 2 and half months late!

Guardian: Climate scientists: who’s who in the hacked email controversy
Steve McIntyre
Former minerals prospector and now full-time scourge of climate science. Runs Climate Audit website. “CRU’s policies of obstructing critical articles in the peer-reviewed literature and withholding data from critics have unfortunately placed issues into play that might otherwise have been settled long ago.”

Very little of what has been revealed by the many ‘gates these past two months is new for many of us who have followed the issue here and few other laces for the last several years. Thus I feel it is an appropriate time to sit back and watch the show.

“We are facing more and more public scrutiny and any future work we do is going to have much greater scrutiny by our peers and by the public. We do need to make more of the data available, I fully accept that.

“We need to work differently, making more data available and making our assumptions clear. Everything needs to be more and more open and we will be striving to do that in the future”

OT but reasonable considering the current situation….If this goes its full course it is quite within the realms of possibility that SM alone or with others may be awarded the Nobel Prize in the coming years.

Amusing and outrageous, but I think it’s unfair to drag Steig into this just because his Antarctic warming article has issues. “IPCC and the Antarctic Boot Cleaning Manual” or “Pachauri and the Antarctic Boot Cleaning Manual” would be more to the point.